4 ms·

> Just yesterday I was scrolling through the comments on a Fox News post about an 18 year old who'd been sentenced to 25 yrs for being present during robbery wh

> Just yesterday I was scrolling through the comments on a Fox News post about an 18 year old who'd been sentenced to 25 yrs for being present during robbery when his friend killed someone. You misread this, likely because that would have made more sense than what actually occurred. The friend/accomplice did not kill anybody, but was killed by police in a shootout; the defendant was charged with murder for this death. The involved law and its application are interesting interpretations of the idea of justice. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/07/ala-teen-turns-down-25-year-plea-deal-gets-sentenced-to-65-years-instead-and-laughs.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/07/ala-teen-turns-down-25-...)

Urbanxassassin 9y ago
And even if he misread what actually happened, the point was young people get serious consequences quite often. Why should Zuckerberg be viewed any differently? Either change the system to judge younger people especially minors less harsh or be consistent.
sangnoir 9y ago
> The friend/accomplice did not kill anybody, but was killed by police in a shootout; the defendant was charged with murder for this death. What the actual fuck? Then again, I can't say I'm suprised that it's in Alabama.
- JackCh 9y ago
  Taking cheap-shots at southern states with disreputable histories is easy, but the vast majority of states (46 out of 50, as of 2008) in America have a Felony Murder rule. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_doctrine
  - kmm 9y ago
    But tellingly, virtually only in the US. Other common law countries which had it, abolished it for being unconstitutional. In any case, calling the (lawful) killing of a kid by the police a murder by an accomplice, is making a mockery of the term murder and of justice in general.
    - JackCh 9y ago
      Not that my opinion on the law matters, but I'd say felony murder rules make a lot of sense in many scenarios. If you accidentally fatally knock a man to the ground while deliberately robbing him, that's felony murder even though the killing itself was accidental. After all, the robbery was no accident. Surely killing a man by accident while committing a felony is itself a heinous crime. Calling it manslaughter just doesn't cut it. Not in my book anyway. It only gets weird when you have two or more criminals cooperating with each other. That's when you get scenarios where one of the criminals is lawfully killed (by the police or otherwise) and another is charged with felony murder. I don't have any statistics for it, but I suspect a more common scenario is one of the criminals commits 'traditional' murder and the other criminals are then charged with felony murder for their general participation. Without some sort of felony murder you might be able to get the other participants with some sort of "conspiracy to commit" type law, but maybe not. A more serious criticism of felony murder laws is that it incentivizes killing more witnesses after one victim has been accidentally killed, particularly in states where capital punishment is on the table for felony murder. After all, if a criminal accidentally kills one victim and is now a candidate for execution, there is little incentive left for him to not deliberately murder any witnesses (under the theory that murdering witnesses lowers the probability of capture/conviction.) It's difficult to guess how many multiple-murders started out with an accidental killing that escalated in this manner. But I'd wager this has happened far more often than the scenario where a robber is charged with murder after the police gun down his partner.
  - sangnoir 9y ago
    Here's an image showing lynchings (what you call "disreputable histories"): Alabama earned it's disrepute, which is why I wasn't surprised. I am not taking a cheap shot, unless you can prove to me that these "histories" are firmly in the past for Alabama, and that the attitudes have not lingered and that lady Justice is now color-blind in Alabama courts. Edit: I've just realized your post is what-aboutism, I regret taking the bait.
    - sangnoir 9y ago
      Replying to myself because I can no longer edit my post to include the image[1]. The image comes from a fortuitously timed "60 Minutes" episode[2] that discusses a lynching memorial that's opening soon. In Alabama. 1. https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/04/08/7bd07dde-775e-4cc2-a412-7c93a7bd24a2/resize/770x/966650c92d187ab85d9da3ce0fd6db49/ot-lynchingphotosi.jpg https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/04/08/7bd07dde-... 2. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-the-memorial-to-victims-of-lynching-60-minutes-oprah-winfrey/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-the-memorial-to-victims-...
    - JackCh 9y ago
      >"firmly in the past" That's something I never said, or even implied. If I said that America has a "history of military power projection", would you object that military power projection is the present reality as well? It certainly is, but you probably would not object to that phrasing. You're reading much more into the use of the word 'history' than you should be. I'm well aware of the civil rights problems in southern states. Save your outrage for a situation more deserving than this conversation, in no conceivable way did I defend honor or reputation of Alabama. I used the word disreputable specifically because the social problems of Alabama are widely known, you needn't teach me something every schoolchild is taught. The simple fact of the matter is that when it comes to the felony murder doctrine, that boy could have just as well been in San Francisco. Rather than allow you to write felony murder off as a consequence of Alabama being a typical southern state, I decided to give you a brief education on the true scope of the issue. Since you were obviously distressed by felony murder doctrine, I expected you to thank me. Instead I get the feeling you're looking for a fight. That's disappointing. >"histories" English isn't my native language, so please correct me if I'm wrong. However I believe when you're referring to Alabaman history specifically (not the history of several separate states at once, as I was in my previous comment) you would use the singular "history" rather than the plural "histories". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history For instance: >Alabama has a history of civil rights violations. >Alabama and California have histories of suppressing labor organizations.
- jlgaddis 9y ago
  AFAIK, there are similar laws in many other states as well. It's definitely not just Alabama. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transferred_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transferred_intent
  - omnimus 9y ago
    This is amazing. Never heard of it. Does it exist to protect cops? To take blame off their shoulders?
    - JackCh 9y ago
      Doubtful. In most scenarios where it applies the cops are not involved in the killing (For instance, if bank robber Bonnie commits murder, bank robber Clyde can be charged for that murder.) Furthermore if a cop lawfully kills a criminal who was acting alone, felony murder doctrine is not involved in the scenario but the cop is still subjected to the same level of scrutiny as he would be if it were. And if a cop unlawfully kills a criminal who was working together with other criminals, felony murder doctrine doesn't make it easier for the cop to get away with it (nor harder, for that matter...)
- raarts 9y ago
  The Alabama slur was uncalled for, but still ... what the actual fuck? 'Interesting' interpretation of justice indeed.

Urbanxassassin 9y ago

And even if he misread what actually happened, the point was young people get serious consequences quite often. Why should Zuckerberg be viewed any differently? Either change the system to judge younger people especially minors less harsh or be consistent.

sangnoir 9y ago

> The friend/accomplice did not kill anybody, but was killed by police in a shootout; the defendant was charged with murder for this death. What the actual fuck? Then again, I can't say I'm suprised that it's in Alabama.

JackCh 9y ago
Taking cheap-shots at southern states with disreputable histories is easy, but the vast majority of states (46 out of 50, as of 2008) in America have a Felony Murder rule. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/felony_murder_doctrine
- kmm 9y ago
  But tellingly, virtually only in the US. Other common law countries which had it, abolished it for being unconstitutional. In any case, calling the (lawful) killing of a kid by the police a murder by an accomplice, is making a mockery of the term murder and of justice in general.
  - JackCh 9y ago
    Not that my opinion on the law matters, but I'd say felony murder rules make a lot of sense in many scenarios. If you accidentally fatally knock a man to the ground while deliberately robbing him, that's felony murder even though the killing itself was accidental. After all, the robbery was no accident. Surely killing a man by accident while committing a felony is itself a heinous crime. Calling it manslaughter just doesn't cut it. Not in my book anyway. It only gets weird when you have two or more criminals cooperating with each other. That's when you get scenarios where one of the criminals is lawfully killed (by the police or otherwise) and another is charged with felony murder. I don't have any statistics for it, but I suspect a more common scenario is one of the criminals commits 'traditional' murder and the other criminals are then charged with felony murder for their general participation. Without some sort of felony murder you might be able to get the other participants with some sort of "conspiracy to commit" type law, but maybe not. A more serious criticism of felony murder laws is that it incentivizes killing more witnesses after one victim has been accidentally killed, particularly in states where capital punishment is on the table for felony murder. After all, if a criminal accidentally kills one victim and is now a candidate for execution, there is little incentive left for him to not deliberately murder any witnesses (under the theory that murdering witnesses lowers the probability of capture/conviction.) It's difficult to guess how many multiple-murders started out with an accidental killing that escalated in this manner. But I'd wager this has happened far more often than the scenario where a robber is charged with murder after the police gun down his partner.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  Here's an image showing lynchings (what you call "disreputable histories"): Alabama earned it's disrepute, which is why I wasn't surprised. I am not taking a cheap shot, unless you can prove to me that these "histories" are firmly in the past for Alabama, and that the attitudes have not lingered and that lady Justice is now color-blind in Alabama courts. Edit: I've just realized your post is what-aboutism, I regret taking the bait.
  - sangnoir 9y ago
    Replying to myself because I can no longer edit my post to include the image[1]. The image comes from a fortuitously timed "60 Minutes" episode[2] that discusses a lynching memorial that's opening soon. In Alabama. 1. https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/04/08/7bd07dde-775e-4cc2-a412-7c93a7bd24a2/resize/770x/966650c92d187ab85d9da3ce0fd6db49/ot-lynchingphotosi.jpg https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/04/08/7bd07dde-... 2. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-the-memorial-to-victims-of-lynching-60-minutes-oprah-winfrey/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-the-memorial-to-victims-...
  - JackCh 9y ago
    >"firmly in the past" That's something I never said, or even implied. If I said that America has a "history of military power projection", would you object that military power projection is the present reality as well? It certainly is, but you probably would not object to that phrasing. You're reading much more into the use of the word 'history' than you should be. I'm well aware of the civil rights problems in southern states. Save your outrage for a situation more deserving than this conversation, in no conceivable way did I defend honor or reputation of Alabama. I used the word disreputable specifically because the social problems of Alabama are widely known, you needn't teach me something every schoolchild is taught. The simple fact of the matter is that when it comes to the felony murder doctrine, that boy could have just as well been in San Francisco. Rather than allow you to write felony murder off as a consequence of Alabama being a typical southern state, I decided to give you a brief education on the true scope of the issue. Since you were obviously distressed by felony murder doctrine, I expected you to thank me. Instead I get the feeling you're looking for a fight. That's disappointing. >"histories" English isn't my native language, so please correct me if I'm wrong. However I believe when you're referring to Alabaman history specifically (not the history of several separate states at once, as I was in my previous comment) you would use the singular "history" rather than the plural "histories". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history For instance: >Alabama has a history of civil rights violations. >Alabama and California have histories of suppressing labor organizations.
jlgaddis 9y ago
AFAIK, there are similar laws in many other states as well. It's definitely not just Alabama. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transferred_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transferred_intent
- omnimus 9y ago
  This is amazing. Never heard of it. Does it exist to protect cops? To take blame off their shoulders?
  - JackCh 9y ago
    Doubtful. In most scenarios where it applies the cops are not involved in the killing (For instance, if bank robber Bonnie commits murder, bank robber Clyde can be charged for that murder.) Furthermore if a cop lawfully kills a criminal who was acting alone, felony murder doctrine is not involved in the scenario but the cop is still subjected to the same level of scrutiny as he would be if it were. And if a cop unlawfully kills a criminal who was working together with other criminals, felony murder doctrine doesn't make it easier for the cop to get away with it (nor harder, for that matter...)
raarts 9y ago
The Alabama slur was uncalled for, but still ... what the actual fuck? 'Interesting' interpretation of justice indeed.